Galesburg receives $1.2 million from EPA to address brownfields
GALESBURG, Ill. (WMBD) — A federal agency has awarded the city of Galesburg more than $1.2 million to address environmental impacts.
The money comes from the Environmental Protection Agency in the form of two grants, the Assessment Grant worth $500,000 and the Cleanup Grant worth more than $713,000, Steve Gugliotta, the city's director of community development, said.
'These funds will help address the environmental impacts of historically contaminated properties, paving the way for community revitalization and economic development. The city has been notified of the awards and is now working to submit all required documentation,' he said.
The two grants will be used for a few different projects, with the bulk of the cleanup grant going to remediate the old Knox Laundry site, he said.
The facility, which used to sit at 57 North Kellogg Street and 332 East Ferris Street, opened in 1898 as a retail laundry store which was expanded into a multi-story dry-cleaning facility, he said.
Between 2006 and 2007, the court ordered the demolition of the building after it had been vacated and condemned because of its deteriorating condition.
'Terminating the business operations and removing former structures has stopped the potential for any continuing releases of contamination into our environment,' he said. 'But until the site is fully remediated, the potential for redevelopment is very limited.'
The money will help the city address remaining contamination, more specifically areas where soil has been 'impacted above saturation limits,' Gugliotta said.
The Assessment Grant will be used to evaluate two different sites that have been labeled as a brownfield.
'A brownfield is a property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant,' the EPA's website said.
The first of these two brownfields is the former Broadview Hotel located at 29 Public Square, which throughout its time was home to many businesses, including a filling station which dates back to 1927, he said.
The second was the former Tucker's Printing Company, located on North Cherry Street, which was recently demolished after it had a second fire in 2024, he said.
The site has housed industrial buildings in the past that Gugliotta says have led to environmental concerns.
With any money from these grants, they may have left over sites that will be selected by a Brownfields Inventory, which was put together in 2023 by Kansas State University's Technical Assistance to Brownfield program, as well as consultants at Terracon, he said.
He said they are anticipating the project to run from Oct. 1, 2025, until Sept. 30, 2029, although that is just an estimate, and the projects may not take that much time.
'We are honored by the EPA's selection and grateful for their support in helping us turn theseunderutilized properties into assets for the community,' Gugliotta said. 'These grants will help improve environmental safety, promote redevelopment, and attract future investment to our city.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
36 minutes ago
- Fast Company
WhatsApp just got banned on Capitol Hill. Here's how you can make the Meta messaging platform more secure
The U.S. House of Representatives' Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Catherine Szpindor, informed congressional staffers this week that WhatsApp is now banned from government phones. The move came after the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity deemed the Meta-owned app to be 'high-risk to users'—a claim that WhatsApp quickly rebutted. But the CAO is correct. While WhatsApp is one of the more secure messaging apps out there, it does have some privacy and security risks. Users can mitigate some of these risks, but others are beyond their control. Here's why WhatsApp is now banned in the U.S. House of Representatives and how you can make the app more secure on your phone. What the Office of Cybersecurity said, exactly The news that the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity had announced a ban on WhatsApp this week came from Axios. On Tuesday, the publication published parts of an internal CAO memo it received, which was sent to congressional staffers on Monday, announcing that WhatsApp was now verboten on government phones. The memo stipulated that 'House staff are NOT allowed to download or keep the WhatsApp application on any House device, including any mobile, desktop, or web browser versions of its products.' It went on to add: 'If you have a WhatsApp application on your House-managed device, you will be contacted to remove it.' The reason? According to the memo, 'The Office of Cybersecurity has deemed WhatsApp a high-risk to users due to the lack of transparency in how it protects user data, absence of stored data encryption, and potential security risks involved with its use.' The CAO didn't provide further details in the memo regarding the above risks. Still, it's easy to interpret some of the things that may have made the CAO leery about the continued use of WhatsApp by Congressional staffers. WhatsApp's transparency issue WhatsApp, like competing secure messaging apps including Apple's iMessages and Signal, is end-to-end encrypted, meaning that no parties other than the ones in the chat, even including Meta, can read the chat messages. But WhatsApp collects a lot more metadata from each chat than other secure messaging apps do, and it sends this info to Meta A chat's metadata includes information such as the identities of the chat participants, IP addresses, phone numbers, and the timestamps of messages. No one knows exactly what Meta does with this metadata. Still, it is shared with Meta's other platforms, including Instagram and Facebook. It is likely used to help the company build social graphs of users, leveraged for advertising purposes, and analyzed by the company to understand who is using their apps, and when and where. This opaqueness is likely some of the 'lack of transparency' risk that the CAO was referring to. As for the 'absence of stored data encryption,' the CAO may have been referring to the default method by which WhatsApp backs up a user's chats. While WhatsApp chats are end-to-end encrypted, if a user backs up those chats to the cloud, the backup itself is not end-to-end encrypted by default. This means that if a bad actor gains access to a WhatsApp user's cloud backup, they could read all of that user's messages. It's no wonder the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity finds this worrying. WhatsApp also doesn't have other privacy and security features on by default, including the ability to lock the app behind biometrics and requiring two-step verification when a WhatsApp account is installed on another phone. If you don't work in the House of Representatives, you can still keep WhatsApp on your phone. But you might want to mitigate its privacy and security risks. Here's how. How to make WhatsApp more secure on your phone Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about WhatsApp's metadata problem. Meta designs WhatsApp so that the metadata of your chats is sent directly to the company. There's no way you can turn this data collection off. But you can make the app more secure on your phone by following some simple steps, including: End-to-end encrypt your WhatsApp backups: In WhatsApp, go to Settings>Chats>Chat Backup>End-to-End Encrypted Backup and turn this option on. Now your chat backups saved in the cloud will be end-to-end encrypted. Lock WhatsApp: You can set WhatsApp to refuse to open without further authentication by locking the app. This means that even if someone has access to your unlocked phone, they won't be able to open WhatsApp unless they know your phone's PIN, or have your face or fingerprint. To lock WhatsApp, go to WhatsApp's Settings>Privacy>App Lock and toggle the feature on. Enable two-step verification: If someone logs into your WhatsApp account on their phone, they'll be able to see your messages. That's why you should set up two-step verification for your account. This will require a PIN that you set to be entered whenever an attempt is made to log into your WhatsApp account on a new device. If the PIN isn't entered correctly, the new device won't have access to your account. To enable two-step verification, go to WhatsApp's Settings>Account>Two-Step Verification and toggle the feature on. Apps the CAO suggests using instead When reached for comment on the CAO's decision to ban WhatsApp, the organization's chief administrative officer, Catherine Szpindor, told Fast Company, 'Protecting the People's House is our topmost priority, and we are always monitoring and analyzing for potential cybersecurity risks that could endanger the data of House Members and staff. We routinely review the list of House-authorized apps and will amend the list as deemed appropriate.' In the past, the CAO has banned or imposed partial bans on various foreign apps, including those from ByteDance, such as TikTok. But the CAO has also previously announced bans or restrictions on apps made by American companies, including Microsoft Copilot and the free versions of ChatGPT. As for Meta, a company spokesperson told Fast Company that it disagrees with the CAO's characterization of WhatsApp 'in the strongest possible terms.' The spokesperson also asserted that, when it comes to end-to-end encryption, WhatsApp offers 'a higher level of security than most of the apps on the CAO's approved list that do not offer that protection.' In the Office of Cybersecurity's memo, the agency provided guidance on alternative secure messaging apps that House staffers could use now that WhatsApp had been banned. According to Axios, those apps include Apple's iMessage and FaceTime, Microsoft Teams, Wickr, and Signal.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stocks usually rise by 10% a year. Those days may be over.
Americans are wise to invest in the stock market, we are told, because stocks have yielded historical gains of about 10% a year. But not, perhaps, this year. Many analysts predict that the S&P 500 index will end 2025 essentially flat, or with only meager gains. In one June 25 roundup, Yahoo Finance charts several strategists with year-end projections that put the benchmark S&P index between 5,600 and 6,100. Those figures fall below, or only slightly above, where the S&P started the year, around 5,900. Some forecasts range higher, and forecasters have been growing more bullish about American stocks in 2025. But anyone who predicts double-digit returns this year risks being branded an outlier. If big investment firms expect the stock market to finish 2025 more or less where it started, how should armchair investors react? Is the investment landscape shifting beneath our feet? First, let's explore the reasoning behind those gloomy forecasts. The stock market opened strong in 2025. The broad S&P index sat near its all-time high, following two years of conspicuous growth. That growth spurt, alone, was enough to seed caution in forecasters. A surging S&P means stock prices are relatively high. Some stocks are overpriced. Bargains are fewer. The index may not have that much room to grow. 'I believe that, given the strong returns over the past two years, some lower returns are expected,' said Eric Teal, chief investment officer at Comerica Bank. Comerica's own projections call for the S&P 500 to end the year at 6,400, a number toward the high end of forecasts. Wall Street prognosticators have been bearish on stocks in 2025 because of one overarching theme: uncertainty. 'It's all the volatile actors in our current economy,' said Catherine Valega, a certified financial planner near Boston. 'It's like you don't know from one day to the next: Do we have tariffs? Do we not have tariffs?' It's hard to predict how President Trump's import taxes will affect prices, and thus, inflation. The trade war, coupled with Trump's immigration crackdown, could slow economic growth. Recession fears are heightened. The Federal Reserve may or may not ease interest rates in response. 'We're assuming that we sidestep a recession, that interest rate cuts are on the horizon, but not immediate,' Teal said, reflecting a common view on Wall Street. 'And so, there is an element of cautious optimism that I think is in the market, but a high degree of uncertainty and macro policy unknowns that will keep markets contained.' There's another big reason, analysts say, why year-end forecasts for the S&P 500 are trending low: Forecasters tend to err on the conservative side. 'The analysts have historically kind of underestimated S&P 500 returns,' said Kristy Akullian, head of iShares investment strategy, Americas, at BlackRock. 'People don't want to stick their necks out with a bold prediction and be wrong.' That impulse, she said, also explains why stock forecasts tend to bunch together. No one wants to stand out. 'It's hard being an outlier,' said David Meier, a senior analyst at Motley Fool. Meier cites yet another reason why stock forecasters tend to aim low: 'Being negative, let's call it bearish, tends to get more clicks,' he said. Readers gravitate to distressing news about stocks. Now, let's move on to the practical question: If the S&P 500 might not gain much ground in 2025, what should ordinary investors do about it? The easy answer, of course, is to do nothing. Stock market projections for next month, or next year, shouldn't matter much to an investor who is in for the long haul, advisers say. And that advice applies to just about everyone: If you aren't in for the long haul, experts advise, stocks might not be for you. 'If you need funds soon, don't have it invested,' said Randy Bruns, a certified financial planner in Naperville, Illinois. 'If you don't need the funds for 15 years, stop looking at the volatility.' Market downturns tend to be brief. Recessions are shorter than they seem. Anyone who is saving for retirement, or for other long-term goals, can generally ride them out. 'If you have the luxury of being a long-term investor, be one,' Akullian said. There is, however, a longer and more nuanced answer to the question of how to respond to those conservative projections for stocks in 2025. It involves this complicating factor: Stock market forecasts are also surprisingly conservative for 2035. Vanguard, the investment firm, predicts the U.S. stock market as a whole will rise by an underwhelming 3.8% to 5.8% a year over the next 10 years. 'Growth' stocks, the likes of Nvidia and Amazon, are projected to rise by only 2.5% to 4.5%: not much faster than inflation. Those forecasts are based on the idea that many U.S. stocks are overpriced, in essence, and trading above their real value. In Vanguard's analysis, everyday investors who want the gaudy returns they have come to expect from American growth stocks would do well to look elsewhere: Global stocks. Small-cap American stocks, in companies with a lower market value. 'Value' stocks, trading below their intrinsic worth. 'I would say it's time to have a more balanced allocation,' said Teal of Comerica. Bruns, the financial planner, suggests average investors should 'diversify across all the broad asset classes that should comprise a textbook portfolio.' That doesn't mean you should sell all of your Alphabet stocks, experts say. But the time might be right to scrutinize your portfolio. Does it include foreign stocks? Small-cap stocks? Bonds? If not, then you might consider rebalancing your portfolio to make it more diverse. 'The easiest way to do that, if you are a 401(k) contributor, is to change your future allocations,' Valega said. That way, you don't have to tinker with your current investments. Not sure how to rebalance? 'Reach out to your adviser,' Valega said. 'That's what we're there for.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Forecasters don't expect much from stocks in 2025. Should you?
New York Times
38 minutes ago
- New York Times
With Supreme Court Ruling, Another Check on Trump's Power Fades
The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6 to 3, will allow Mr. Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country — even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors without green cards can be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that already took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
